CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Saturday 6 October 2012
“There are two disturbing problems with Axelrod’s statements.”
On Social Security, if Not Now, When?
Many centuries ago, the Jewish scholar Hillel posed a question that is as prescient as any Nostradamus prophecy: "If not now," he asked, "when?" It's a rhetorical query many of us contemplate during the high holy days, which concluded last month. And after a revealing comment by President Obama's top political aide, it's a question that now haunts Social Security.
The remark in question came during last week's debate about fiscal issues on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." In an otherwise forgettable conversation, things became newsworthy when the conversation turned to Obama's position on Social Security reforms. At that point, the president's consigliere, David Axelrod, responded not with a clear position, but instead by trying to halt the conversation.
"I'll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table, we'll have that discussion," he told the panel.
When pressed, Axelrod insisted that the election season meant no debate should proceed. "This is not the time, he said. "We're not going to have that discussion right now."
There are two disturbing problems with Axelrod's statements. First and foremost is his suggestion that a Social Security policy debate should only be conducted between White House officials and U.S. senators — not between all government officials and the general public. It's a fundamentally elitist idea that evokes notions of smoky back rooms and secret deals. Not only that, it both contradicts basic notions of civic engagement and confirms Americans' fears about a government that wholly disregards the citizenry.
Along the same lines is Axelrod's insistence that even if we were to have a public debate about Social Security, we somehow shouldn't "have that discussion right now" because of the impending election.
While it is certainly true that a presidential contest tends to focus on silly frivolities (say, Paul Ryan's workout schedule or Joe Biden's photo with motorcyclists), and while it is undeniable that an election season tends to bring out the craziness in everyone, it is also true that those unfortunate realities are no justification to divorce the entire campaign from serious issues.
Elections, after all, aren't supposed to only be vapid exercises in bad reality TV. They are also supposed to be exercises in democratic participation, which means they are supposed to present We the People with a substantive policy discourse — one that helps us all cast informed votes.
This is a particularly important principle when it comes to Social Security — a program about which the Obama administration has been sending mixed signals.
The most recent signals, of course, came from the president himself, who has insisted that "what I'm not going to do, as a matter of principle, is to slash benefits or privatize Social Security."
Yet, during the first presidential debate in Denver, he nonetheless called for the program to be "tweaked" — a troubling reminder that last July, the Washington Post and CBS News ran stories headlined "In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts" and "Obama proposes cuts to Social Security," respectively, with both quoting unnamed. Democratic officials leaking the prospect of big reductions in promised benefits. Likewise, at the Democratic National Convention this year, Vice President Biden criticized Republicans for not embracing the Social Security cuts championed by the Bowles-Simpson commission. Meanwhile, as some Democratic legislators have pushed to enact Obama's own 2008 campaign proposal to raise the Social Security payroll tax cap, the White House has been noticeably absent in voicing its support for such legislation.
In light of these equivocations, the key questions should be ringing in every voter's ear. If we can't have a debate about Social Security before we make a presidential choice, at what point can we ever have such a debate in a way that honors our democratic ideals? In Hillel's own words, if not now, when?
Copyright Creators.com
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT David Sirota
David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado.
Top Stories
By Green Shadow Cabinet
14 comments on "On Social Security, if Not Now, When?"
October 07, 2012 2:41pm
kit65 what tgs10 did was add employer part and medicare in
October 07, 2012 8:12am
In response to TGS10
Your arithmetic is very optimistic. I was under the impression that Social Security payroll deductions are 6.2%, not 15%. on wages up to $110,100.
October 06, 2012 8:32pm
There some people who get elected feel that the only time to talk about issues is only when they feel it's time?, they seem to forget that they work for us the tax payer, and that we pay for ALL the benefits they get? we should vote to eliminate all congressional fringe benefits?. we should make a Law? that to be elected to any position, one can not be a lawyer.
October 06, 2012 8:26pm
Social Security should only be for the elders that reached the age of 62 no younger, and who have paid into the system by a combination of self-employed and or Military, and or working for some one, and be a Citizen. any person who can not provide documentation for proof of this qualifications will NOT receive benefits. all who do qualified are guaranteed free Medical, after all if criminals, those on welfare, and others who could care less about contributing but are happy to get? well is time that those who contribute get it back after 30 years of working and supporting our nation ?.
October 06, 2012 5:51pm
Chetdude and JON2794 make too much sense. Why do I find better ideas from the comments here than I ever do from Congress or presidents?
October 06, 2012 3:18pm
Axelrod is correct in one respect: elections are the worst time to focus deliberatively in problem-solving mode on any one particular topic, because ALL topics are then being bandied about and reduced to partisan slogans. Far from being occasions for democratic participation in problem-solving deliberation, elections are adversarial popularity contests. If, however, you've already committed to a fighting position, preferably a diehard one-issue position, then the election season is a good or even the best time to press forward on it! So, while this season is no good for hashing out particulars of SocSec reform, it's fine for a campaign and slogan like: 'No FICA tax cap or else NObama!'
October 06, 2012 1:21pm
This is why I cannot vote for Obama. When asked about social security he always responds with weasel speak.
There is a clip out with Clinton talking in private with Ryan at the Pete Peterson Foundation. He was telling Ryan, "Don't worry, we will get this done." The only thing Ryan worries about is doing away with "entitlements".
I think Obama and Romney have both agreed to cut social security and medicare. This is another betrayal of the basic trust of the people of the United States of America and it amounts to treason. Obama's failure to investigate the Bush Administration is another act of treason. Obama's failure to investigate and prosecute the Bank thieves is another dereliction of duty.
October 06, 2012 11:36am
Mr. Sirota,
I wholeheartedly agree that this is a debate to be held with more direct participation of citizens, and I have certainly had problems myself with the attitudes of David Axelrod on a number of issues. However, considering Karl Rove's slash and burn campaign tactics, unlimited budget, and the almost constant baldfaced misrepresentation of the President's words on so many issues (most memorably "you didn't build that") I am not surprised that, this close to the election, Pres. Obama's staff are more than hesitant to give the opposition new cut-and-paste material on such an emotionally charged issue. I think that also informed their (ill-advised) debate strategy. Just sayin'....
October 06, 2012 11:28am
SOCIAL SECURITY NOW CALLED 'FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT'/ENTITLEMENT!
Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment"?
I'll be part of the one percent to forward this.
I am posting it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you.
Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it.
The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a Federal Benefit Payment.
This isn't a benefit its earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.
If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.
If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both your and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment.
Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.
That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration.
And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.
Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did.
They took our money and used it elsewhere. They forgot that it was OUR money they were taking.
They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently, they've told us that the money wont support us for very much longer.
But is it our fault they misused our investments?
And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a benefit, as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. A BENEFIT ???
Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't mean that our investments were a charity!
Lets take a stand.
We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.
Then call it what it is:
Our Earned Retirement Income.
99% of people won't forward this.
Will you?
October 06, 2012 11:13am
Riase the cap on income subject to FICA Tax. These do-nothing congressmen could raise it every time it's needed. They could raise it every decade, every 3 years or every year. They have the power to do just that. We need to vote all Republicans out of Congress and keep a close eye on the Democrats. We need a party for the preservation of the Middle Class.
October 06, 2012 11:04am
The BASIC problem is that we live in a country that as a matter of POLICY has abandoned Community in favor of the needs and desires of the 1%...
USAmerica is now a greedy society fundamentally opposed to sharing the wealth.
The essential decision is whether to tilt the playing field toward those seeking to maximize their own personal fortunes (what we have now and what BOTH of the spokesmodels for the Duopoly will perpetuate) or to finally decide to live out the hypocritical slogans that USAmerica has been spouting over the last couple of centuries.
If USAmerica and USAmericans decided to live out the "Dream", there would be no question; we would SLASH the war budgets and, if necessary, tax ourselves whatever would be required to provide for the basic human needs for food, water, clothing, housing and health care for EVERY PERSON living within our borders.
We would not be playing the stingy game that's promoting the luxurious lifestyles of the 1% to the detriment of the rest of us!
If not now, WHEN?
October 06, 2012 10:24am
The solution is incredibly simple: Eliminate the cap on income subject to the FICA tax.
October 06, 2012 10:57am
And then we could also lower the payroll tax rate for EVERYONE too.
October 06, 2012 8:46am
create a web-based calculator that had variables such as: number of participants, cap on salary , percentage of ssa premium, actuarial tables, interest rates etc. etc. and then play the game of what if.